W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:26:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd5iU6WZYVhjwvWnbYUQK+qAYBOc18vxMmydN=7B=ziAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
I'll note that I work at YouTube, and care deeply about video
distribution... and I'm not worried about it.

As a matter of fact, I'd really, really like to take advantage of the
prioritization scheme along with smaller frames so that I can have better
codecs in the future which do much better adaptive stuff w.r.t. bandwidth
changes.
This matters far more to me.

As it turns out, our users care deeply about the quality of their
experience.
-=R


On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <CABaLYCvFxo0qPG=
> 7o6YcpBDCVETqb6OS3-3_CpQ6KC89u0vniw@mail.gmail.com>
> , Mike Belshe writes:
>
> >As it turns out, the number of folks that need super high efficiency bulk
> >transport of large data over the internet is very low.
>
> The segment of webmasters who usually introduce themselves as "being
> in the multimedia business" would not agree with you about that.
>
> Since their pink bits account for between one and two thirds of all
> HTTP traffic, I think it would be a bad idea to marginalize them,
> even if they don't participate directly and don't come to the
> meetings.
>
> And:
>
> The length extension proposal is not *just* about solving bulk
> transfer, it is *also* about getting rid of the CONTINUATION kludge.
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 20:27:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC